Saturday, 25 May 2013

About the beheading of a British soldier, off duty in London, by a couple of Islamist loonies, David Cameron called it a "betrayal of Islam" and the Muslim Council of Britain called it a "barbaric act that has no basis in Islam...".Really?How about:

Dotted through these pieces are manifold examples of Islamic preachers and representatives praising the Woolwich beheading as a glory to Islam, or similar (Omar Bakri just one example).
Given the weight of evidence of Islam as the single driving factor in the Woolwich beheading -- and of all Islamic violence in recent years -- it is profoundly dishonest to search, sometimes desperately, for other motives, and to claim -- palpably falsely -- that it has "nothing to do with Islam", or is "twisting Islam".Meantime, it turns out that the butcher himself, Michael Adebolajo, is a member of the UAF, a far-left outfit that is supported by David Cameron, would you believe, and has as its vice-chair Muslim extremist Azad Ali. (I'm sorry, I'm supposed to say Adebolajo is the "alleged" suspect. But why? He was standing over the body with bloody knife in hand, proudly boasting of his butchery).
Adebolajo was also involved with that Islamist rotter Anjem Chowdary, an interesting snippet brought to attention by Sam Harris.

Friday, 24 May 2013

This in interesting for the light it sheds on what authoritative Muslims say about Sharia -- quite the opposite of the benign -- positive even -- slant of many Sharia apologists in the west:

Hard-line Islamist students protested in the Afghan capital on Wednesday, demanding the repeal of a presidential decree for women’s rights that they say is un-Islamic.....

More than 200 male students protested in front of Kabul University on Wednesday against the decree on Elimination of Violence Against Women, which includes a ban on child marriage and forced marriage, makes domestic violence a crime and says rape victims cannot be prosecuted for adultery. It also outlaws “ba’ad,” a traditional practice of exchanging women or girls to settle disputes or debts.A protester, Fazel Hadi, 25, said the decree was “imposed by foreigners” and violated Shariah law.

You see: it's not Islamic sharia to disallow child marriage. It's not Islamic sharia to stop forced marriage. It's not Islamic sharia to stop beating women. It's not Islamic sharia to stop women rape victims from being charged with adultery. Surely, enough said -- one would have thought -- about the horrid nature of sharia. But no; I've no doubt the apologists will carry on, and simply note that these folks are -- as The New York Times, the paper of record, has noted at the outset -- simply "hard liners" and therefore not be be seen as representative of the Religion of Peace.But that's wrong. Study of the classic manual of Islamic Jurisprudence, the Umdat ul-Salik (referenced at left) shows that in each of the cases mentioned, these so called "hard line Islamists" are spot on. Islamic doctrine is on their side. Which is why they will win this argument. And women will again be the losers.

In today’s febrile cultural and religious climate, what project could be more fraught than writing a biography of Muhammad? The worldwide protests at “The Innocence of Muslims,” 14 minutes of trashy provocation posted on YouTube, are a terrible reminder to the would-be biographer that the life story of the prophet of Islam is not material about which one is free to have a “take.” Lesley Hazleton’s “First Muslim” is a book written by a white woman of dual American and British citizenship, published in America more than a decade after the 9/11 attacks. For many believers it is already — even before it is read, if it is read at all — an object of suspicion, something to be defended against, in case it should turn out to be yet another insult, another cruel parody of a story such an author has no business telling.

She, Hazleton the author, certainly need not have worried, no matter how much her reviewer, Hari Kunzru, did on her behalf; for Hazleton's portrait of Muhammad, "the first Muslim" is pure hagiography.
The article led me to her recent-ish talk at the famous, liberal, TED conference, at which her main aim was to show that there is no such thing as the "72 virgins" if a Muslim is "martyred" (that is, killed in any way, including by strapping on a bomb vest to kill we infidels).
She's wrong about that -- about the virgins awaiting in paradise -- as is easily shown by cursory research. In canonical Islam, there are indeed virgins awaiting the martyr. Maybe 72 (the most common number). Or maybe just "a lot" (which is what 72 is meant to represent).
My main question is: WHY? Why would she do this? Why would she set out to whitewash Islamic doctrine? What's in it for her? Does she really believe her own talk? If yes, how on earth? For her basic thesis -- that the Koran is devoid of heavenly virgins and rather a peaceable tract -- is simply and provably false, even by the canonical Islamic doctrine, the Trinity of Islam.
And what of the TED crowd. The most depressing for me was how they gave her a standing ovation. What, you know nothing of Islam? And you're so proud of that, that you'll celebrate someone telling you what you'd like to believe?
I'm sorry, but it's really depressing to see such a group of intelligent people buying into a narrative that is quite simply wrong. And provably, historically, so.

"...it is the duty of those who have accepted Islam to strive unceasingly to convert or subjugate those who have not. This obligation is without limit of time or space. It must continue until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the Islamic state."

-- Bernard Lewis, renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East, in The Political Language of Islam, p72-3.

In other words:

"Islam is unique among religions of the world in having a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers."